Fitzgerald's Focus: Which Crime to Charge (Libby/Rove) Next

In reviewing Fitzgerald's long, detailed indictment, a few things become abundantly clear. 1) Libby & "Official A" leaked classified info to people who were not authorized to have it. 2) Fitzgerald feels that these crimes against the CIA are damaging to the all of us in this country. 3) Fitzgerald does not like being lied to. 4) Fitzgerald is not done with this case.

I believe Fitzgerald's focus now is not if he should try to indict on any other charges. No, I believe he already knows he will pursue more indictments. The question is which crimes will he seek indictments on.

As stated above, it is clear that Libby & Rove both leaked classified info to reporters. That's against the law. Case closed. He's got them.

So why hasn't he gotten indictments on just that?

Because if he can nail down their motives, Fitzgerald will have them on so much more than just the crime of leaking classified info.

If he can prove that they leaked classified info with the knowledge that it's classified, then he can nail them on the Espionage Act.

If he can prove that they leaked classified info with the intent to damage national security, then he can nail them on the IIPA.

And if he can prove that this was a coordinated effort between two or more of them, he's got them for conspiracy.

If you read the transcripts, when Fitzgerald is asked why he didn't indict Libby for leaking classified info, he did not say "because that crime was not committed." Instead, the very measured Fitzgerald said he was still tracking down the motive.

More crimes were committed, folks. And you can bet that more indictments are on the way.

..for partisan reasons needs to be addressed more fully...and nailing Libby for lying under oath just ain't gonna cut it..

...started with just one indictment too....

gotta love Fitz!

:loveya:

What is Fitz's record in the Chicago Hired Trick Scandle?
He is batting 1000, even better than the World Champion White Sox!

deliberate way. He is not going to go outside of his mandate because he knows that that takes him into the world of policy. Policy is not his responsibility. He will take the narrowest view possible of what he has rather than trying to ferret out who thought what and why. If he is after intent, he will only go for proof of the intent required to convict on perjury and not further.
The policy issues are for the politicians and the public to fight over.

He's got a bunch of BushCo buddies on that.

I agree with Writes2000. The specificity of the indictment is the tipoff that he's going deeper.

And, honey, espionage is a crime, not a policy. At least, in legitimate governments.

The intent (mens rea) required is willfully.

You articulated the thought that's been bubbling in the back of my mind all weekend.

As soon as Fitz mentioned 18 USC 793 (Espionage Act) with his Own Voice in his Own Press Conference, I knew that a lot of the analysis on DU had been vindicated.

The IIPA was never the only statute in question here, as the corp. media has led us to believe.

The ONLY reason Fitz hasn't indicted these thugs on Espionage/IIAP/Conspiracy is M O T I V E. And that's where aalll the dirt lies.

of establishing intent. I think he didn't want to show too much of his hand, but needed to bring enough indictments against Libby to indicate that he had a firm grip on somebody fairly high up. The VP's chief of staff fit the bill nicely. Now he's got the first link the chain firmly in his grasp. Let's see where it leads.

Willfully ignoring Fitz's words and deliberately lying on TV to cover for BushCo.

that anything beyond perjury requires the proof of "intent" which is very, very difficult.

I'm doubtful there's a smoking gun memo or email, but that would help.

My understanding of how Fitz replied to this question was that he was just as happy to indict on an easier-to-prove offense than one more difficult. Not that he didn't have evidence, not that he didn't believe it was committed, but that it was a slam-dunk to indict on the charges that he did. Perhaps he felt he owed it to this grand jury who had just watched the case unfold for the past 2 years, to at least offer up one indictment to them. Plus, at least one charge specifically relates to Libby lying to the grand jury directly, in response to one of their questions -- Fitz pointed this out during the press conf.

I think Fitz was pressed for time, the deadline was artificial, and he gave the grand jury a reward for their work. Perhaps there's some sort of badge of honor involved -- that maybe the 2-year-old grand jury may have felt dissed if a brand spankin' new grand jury got to indict on the charges that the old grand jury had spent 2 years hearing.

I don't think this sole indictment is ANY indication of what's to come, notwithstanding Fitz's cautions.

is the best way to draw them into a trap.

Let 'em squirm away! That's what Fitz is doing!

:toast:

to get to the truth.

Based on how seriously he seems to take that mandate, it's hard for me to believe that he will throw up his hands and say "well, they lied to keep the truth away from me...I give up."

It's clear to me that Libby knew that she was covert/her status was classified.

I think he's looking to charge Libby/Rove and perhaps Cheney with more than that.

And I suspect you are. I will be sorely disappointed if he drops the ball.

The sticking point in my head is whether the intent was to cause harm to national security. I'm not certain if that's mandatory to prove, and I hope it is not, because seemingly all else can be proven sufficiently.

I mean, what's really the point of having the intelligence security act, and identities protection act, if they can be so easily violated, as demonstrated in this case? That's the question that keeps my brow furrowed at the moment.

Because it was after THAT they started a-drippin'.

My take on the Levine thing is that Fitz and Rove had opposite interpretations of that email, and Fitz realizes Rove just handed him the golden key, but time was running out with this grand jury so he back-burnered it. (yeah, I like to dream, so what?)

The Levine email proves to me that Rove knew he had done wrong and was hiding it from people to whom he normally communicated such things. Far from it proving insignificance, it proves the opposite.

what more does one need to know other than the fact that the document from which that info comes, and the paragraph of that document are both marked "secret."

To even believe that the original leaker didn't know it was classified is BS. IMHO, Fitz has them, and he's gonna either get them or die trying.

it doesn't seem to be enough to know that information is classified.

Several portions of the indictment make it oh-so-very-clear that Fitz recognized that Libby knew the info was secret. That just doesn't seem to be in dispute.

:shrug:

if you know it's classified, and you share it with someone who is unauthorized to have it---you are guilty according to the statute---also, if you, as an unauthorized person, receive classified info, and you share it with others---you are guilty according to the statute----and, if you know classified info was shared and you cover it up, (section 792 of same code)--you are guilty according to the statute---penalty is heavy fine and up to 10 years in prison.---BUT, if the info that was "leaked" to unauthorized individuals concerned WMD (as did this leak) the death penalty, according to section 794 of the statute, is on the table.

What these people in the White House did was to endanger the lives of citizens by providing aid and comfort to our enemies by providing our enemies their names and the name of the front company for which they worked, and made it more difficult for us to gather more of that information---all for the sake of covering up their lies intended to take this country to war and to line their pockets.

IMHO, if Fitz doesn't indict others (and, I believe he will) then we can kiss democracy, such as the poor state it is in already, goodbye. There will be no justice. Elected leaders can do anything except have sex in the oval office and get away with it.

But somehow the issue of intent keeps coming up

I think Fitzgerald wants the whole picture to know which crime to indict for.

Each crime comes with a different penalty. And certain crimes implicate more than one person.

At the least, Fitzgerald could indict on leaking classified info. But depending on the intent, he could indict on alot more.

I'm guessing he is squeezing Libby as we speak. He wants to know the whole story so he pursues the indictment for the correct crime.

While I love how thorough and apparently anal-retentive (in a nice way) Fitz is, I'm so concerned that by the time justice is served, we will all be gone and forgotten.

He's been waiting a whole year just to get this far. I don't think he'll slow this down.

And with court appearance based on set schedules, I think the pressure will also cause some quick results.

Fingers crossed.

I think that completely sums up what he considers to be the loose ends that need tying.

inadvertance, by recklessness, or by maliciousness, while extremely important, is important only to the extent of the kind of "sentence" which should be handed down upon conviction.

The Intelligence Identities Protection Act requires a proof that on KNEW the agent outed was covert. As I read the Espionage Act, the only thing that needs to be "known" is that the information was classified....motive is not involved....and, I hope (and believe) that Fitz will refrain from indicting because it was "inadvertant" or "reckless," etc.---That's for the jury to decide. And, IMHO, there is NO WAY on this green earth that it was inadvertant---reckless, maybe----malicious, absolutely.

of course they 'knew' she was covert - They would know details of her work - classified. Just a case of dotting the i and crossing the t)?

someone was saying that OTHERS have been indicted but their identity hasn't been revealed due to security cover. Is that right?

I was really dissapointed in my "Fitzmas Present"...I was hoping for a Harley-Davidson and all I got was a broken down Scooter. My bet is that Libby pleads down with no prison time and that neither Rove or Cheney will be indicted....anybody want to bet a steak dinner on this? Fitzgerald's been bought off.

If Fitz had been bought off, Libby would not be indicted. Fitz would have come back w nothing. Reread the indictment. There is a lot of meat there, meatier than any steak dinner.

As to Rove or Cheney, time will tell. I don't know what will happen.

I agree with the previous poster AND I think Harley Davidsons are a waste of money. I have a few 'broken down' Vespa scooters and love 'em! And they hold their value and can be made to go plenty fast.

:)

But we are a party of inclusion, so I'd still ride with ya.

back to topic, I think there is a LOT more about to happen, but he doesn't want to give them an escape loophole by hurrying through this.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Take a closer look at your broken down scooter. It's actually an antique "Dinky" and it's worth a packet.

Why would anyone let him plead down unless he offers up something/someone worthwhile in return?

Nope. This was a dirty underhanded trick on Fitzgerald's part. And I love it.

A raft of indicrments (all against staffers) and with all cards on the table may easily have given the Administration the chance to spin it as all the work of loyal but misguided staffers: Let them go more in sorrow than in anger; A few plea bargains; Some hefty fines to smooth ruffled public feathers; and everyone's off to their new jobs at Haliburton.

Now this way, the Administration is set up to shoot itself in the foot. Every time they go on public record with something, which Fiztgerald knows to be otherwise, is their hammering another nail into their own coffins.

As has been said before: It's not the crime that gets them it's the coverup. And Fitzgerald is happily giving them many oportunities to prove this right.